See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346438710

Migration in Mumbai: Trends in Fifty Years

Article in Demography India · January 2007

CITATIONS READS
7 6,071

1 author:

Dharmendra Pratap Singh

Tata Institute of Social Sciences
29 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

construction of wealth index in india View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dharmendra Pratap Singh on 28 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Demography India
Vol. 36, No. 2 (2007), pp. 315-327

D. P. Singh*

Migration in Mumbai: Trends in Fifty Years

M UMBAI, (previously Bombay) is known as India’s financial capital. According

to latest Indian census of 2001, the population of Mumbai was enumerated as 1.2
million and taking into account the adjoining areas of Urban Agglomeration, it touches 1.6
million. It is most populated city in the country and fifth in the world. The estimated
population projection indicates that the Mumbai will reach the position of third most
populated city in the world in 2050.
Migration has played the most significant role in the changing demographic profile of
city. In the first half of 20th century, Mumbai grew mainly on account of movement of
people from other parts of the country. The contribution of the migration to the city was
recorded as high of 400 per cent during 1921-31. The present paper examines the growth of
Mumbai during last five decades with special reference to the process of migration.
In the last few decades there have been a large number of studies on migration pattern,
characteristics and behaviour of population of Mumbai. The study of Lakdawala (1963)
probably one of the detailed one on the Mumbai city in early sixties attempted to understand
various aspects of Mumbai’s population. Based on 1961 census special migration tabulations,
Zachariah’s (1968) Bombay migration study analyzed various facets of migrants in terms of
trends and characteristics. The study found that the longer the exposure of migrants to city
life, more the resemblance with non-migrants, and more dissimilarity with populations from
where migrants originate in terms of demographic, social and economic characteristics.
Many sample survey conducted in Mumbai during last 20 years, highlight the migration
differentials in demographic and socio-economic characteristics (Gore, 1970; Visaria, 1973;
Ramachandran, 1974; Narain and Gotpagar, 1983; Muttagi and Yesudian, 1984; Sengupata,
1982; Sebastian, 1991; Acharya and Jose, 1991).
* Professor, Centre for Research Methodology, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Deonar, Mumbai - 400 008.
E-mail: dpsingh@tiss.edu
316 D. P. Singh

Source of Data
Indian decennial censuses are the main source of information on migration pattern in
the country. The present article utilizes information collected in the Indian census from
1961 to 2001. In Indian census place of birth information is collected to distinguish a migrant
(a person whose place of birth was different than the place of enumeration) from non-
migrants (that is, the persons who were born at the place of enumeration). From 1971 census,
information on place of last residence is added to in addition to place of birth information.
Both the POB and PLR concept provide total number of migrants to place of enumeration
(that is lifetime migration pattern). From 1961 census information on duration of residence
at place of enumeration was collected to understand time dimension of migration pattern.
The limitations of these concepts are well discussed by number of authors (U.N., 1970;
Zachariah, 1977; Narain, 1987). In this paper both information from place of birth and
place of last residence are used to understand migration level and pattern to Mumbai during
last five decades.
Components of Population Growth
The population growth of any geographical area is an outcome of three components:
(a) natural increase, the balance of births over deaths; (b) net migration, the balance of
movements to the area over movements out of the area; and (c) geographical expansion of
an area that is, annexation to the area of adjacent areas. In Greater Bombay, the last component
has no effect till 2001 census. However, it may be remembered that the district of Greater
Bombay was divided into two districts during late 90’s — Bombay suburbs and Bombay for
administrative purpose which do not affect much of migration pattern and level to Mumbai.
There was no increase in the geographical limits of the city. However, it may be noted that,
though, population estimate of the census of 1991, relate the same geographical area of
previous censuses, during 1981-91, the areas adjacent to Greater Bombay registered very
high population increase due to government policy of controlling the growth of Bombay
and especially development of twin city of New Bombay in the Thane district. In the present
paper the urban agglomeration part of Greater Mumbai is not considered. Table shows the
contribution of natural increase and net migration since 1901 for the district of Greater
Bombay. Till 1931, number of deaths exceeded births in the city resulting a negative value
of natural increase. Decade 1931-41 was the turning point when natural increase appeared
to be small and positive, but from 1941 onwards the contribution of natural increase started
strengthening upward. In the decade 1961-71 and 1971-81, the estimated natural increase
contributed nearly 50 per cent and 60 per cent of total population growth respectively. The
estimated contribution of natural increase for the decade 1981-91, was nearly 80 per cent to
the total growth.
Net migration has been an important component of population growth for Greater
Bombay since 1901. The impact of net migration was partly nullified due to negative natural
increase before 1931. The city grew by net migration alone till 1931 and even in the decade
1931-41. Net migration contributed nearly 80 per cent of total growth in 1941-51, recording
Migration in Mumbai: Trends in Fifty Years 317

TABLE 1: COMPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH IN GREATER BOMBAY

BY DECADES; 1901-2001 (in ’000)

Decade Total Population Natural Increase Net-Migration Percentage share of

Growth (in ’000) Natural Increase Migration

1901-11 221 –129 350 –58.37 158.37

1911-21 231 –168 399 –72.73 172.73
1921-31 18 –58 76 –322.22 422.22
1931-41 402 4 398 1.00 99.00
1941-51 1194 243 951 20.35 79.65
1951-61 1158 558 600 48.19 51.81
1961-71 1818 947 871 50.50 49.50
1971-81 2274 1203 1071 60.42 39.58
1981-91 1682 1400 282 83.23 16.77
1991-2001 2053 1254 799 61.08 38.92

Source: K. C. Zacharia, 1964, Migrants in Greater Bombay; Table 1.6, pp. 15. Estimates for decade
1961-2001 are based on vital statistics method.

all time high volume of net migration due to partition of country in 1947. The volume of net
migration during 1951-61 was 600 thousand persons. During the decades 1961-71 and
1971-81 the contribution of net migration was nearly 900 thousand persons accounting
49.5 per cent, and nearly 1100 thousand contributing 39.5 per cent of total increase of
Bombay population. The decade 1981-91 indicate all time low contribution of net migration
around 17 per cent to its total growth which has been questioned by number of demographers
as under-enumeration of city population. The migration contributed about 39 per cent of
total population growth of Greater Mumbai during last decade of 1991-2001 (Table 1).

Level of Migration in Mumbai

Census of India adopts concept of place of birth to define person as a migrant if a
person born at a place different than the place of enumeration at the time of census
undertaking. In Greater Mumbai about 43 per cent persons reported a different place of
birth in 2001 census. The level of migration shows continuous decline from 1961 census as
high of 64.2 per cent. The 1991 census figure seems grossly incorrect. Table 2 shows the
distribution of person reporting place of birth within the state of Maharashtra and other
states of country. The migration to Mumbai was always dominated by migrants from other
states. The interstate migrants constituted nearly 60 per cent of migrants to the city in almost
all the previous censuses. A noticeable decline is observed among international migrants
since post independence. The high level of international migrants in early fifties was mainly
attributed to the great partition Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan in 1947.
From where They Come
Table 3 presents the details of number of persons living in Mumbai and their place of
birth according to particular state of India. According to 2001 census, the highest percentage
318 D. P. Singh

TABLE 2: PERCENTAGE OF MIGRANTS IN GREATER MUMBAI DISTRICT BASED ON

PLACE OF BIRTH DATA

Census year

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Total Population (in ’000) 4152 5971 8243 9926 11978

Migrants percentage 64.21 56.48 51.31 37.24 43.29
Within state migrants percentage 26.75 23.48 21.67 15.34 16.19
Others States within country migrants percentage 34.09 30.70 28.13 21.11 26.48
International Migrants percentage 3.37 2.30 1.51 0.79 0.62

Source: Census of India, 1961-2001, Migration Tables

TABLE 3: PLACE OF BIRTH OF MIGRANTS TO GREATER MUMBAI: 1961–2001 (in ’000)

State of Origin Census year

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Total Population 4152 5971 8243 9926 11978

Total Migrant 2667 3372 4229 3697 5185
Maharashtra 1111 1402 1786 1523 1939
Uttar Pradesh 320 454 672 713 1259
Bihar 6 14 34 52 182
Orissa 2 4 9 14 40
West Bengal 13 20 33 41 104
Gujarat 451 501 569 440 497
Madhya Pradesh 23 30 41 37 59
Karnataka 172 247 304 242 302
Andhra Pradesh 90 102 114 85 125
Kerala 74 121 141 108 115
Tamil Nadu 85 110 142 129 163
Goa 83 77 65 39 33
Rajasthan 52 87 113 121 201
Punjab 33 32 37 28 29
Haryana – 11 12 14 17
Delhi 8 13 19 18 27
North Eastern states 1 2 3 8 7
Other Northern states 2 9 8 9 13
Pakistan 111 103 87 49 39
Nepal 9 13 14 13 21
Bangladesh – – 2 1 2
Other Asian countries 11 12 12 9 7
Other countries 9 10 10 6 6
Migration in Mumbai: Trends in Fifty Years 319

of migrants reported place of birth within the state of Maharashtra (37.4%) followed by
state of Uttar Pradesh (24.3%) and Gujarat (9.6%). The contribution of migrants from other
states are mainly from states of Karnataka (5.8%), Rajasthan (3.9%), Bihar (3.5%), Tamil
Nadu (3.1%), Andhra Pradesh (2.4%), Kerala (2.2%), and West Bengal (2.0%). Examining
the contribution of migrants during 50 years in 1961 indicates that migrants from Maharashtra
constituted 41.6 per cent followed by 16.9 per cent from Gujarat, 12 per cent from Uttar
Pradesh. The migrants from other states reported maximum from Karnataka (6.4%), Andhra
Pradesh (3.4%), Tamil Nadu (3.2%), Goa (3.1%), Rajasthan (2%) and Punjab (1.2%). The
migrants from remaining states were less than 1 per cent.
The most noticeable change in contribution of migrants to Greater Mumbai over last
fifty is observed from the northern state of Uttar Pradesh which shows an increase from
12 per cent to 24 per cent and Bihar from 0.2 per cent to 3.5 per cent. The state of Gujarat
and Goa indicate continuous decline in their share of migrants. The migrants from Gujarat
has reduced from 16.9 per cent to 9.6 per cent while migrants of Goa indicate a decline of
3 per cent to 0.6 per cent.
The intradistrict migrants from the state of Maharashtra also show a decline of about
4 percentage (i.e., 41.6% to 37.4%). An overall emerging pattern of migration over last half
of 20th century indicate that flow of migration to Mumbai is dominated by North Indian
states while the contribution of migrants from four southern states (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil
Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka) remain between 15 to 16 per cent.
The migrants from other country to Mumbai show considerable decline especially
from Pakistan, the 39 thousand migrants who reported their place of birth as Pakistan mostly
are survivors of 1947 immigrants. The most surprising immigrants are recorded from
Bangladesh at about 2000 persons which is grossly underenumerated. It may be observed
that migrant from state of West Bengal has increased more than 2.5 times from 1991 to
2001. It seems reasonable to say that most of immigrants from Bangladesh reported West
Bengal as their place of birth due to similarity in language as well as culture. It also may be
possible that the hostile political parties in the state made them to do so.
Table 4 presents rural and urban place origin of migrants. It may be seen that the
proportion of migrant moving to Greater Mumbai are dominated by rural migrants over the
last 50 years. In 2001, more than two-third of all migrants reported to move from rural
areas. In comparison to migrants from within the state reported higher percentage (74.3%)
from rural areas than interstate migrants from rural areas (66.0%).
An interesting observation one can make that the decadal migrants reported higher
percentage of rural migrants over the last five decades among both within state as well as
other states migrants.
Rural and Urban Area of Origin of Interstate Migrants
The migrant place of origin as rural and urban are shown in Table 5. In 2001, about 78
per cent of migrants from other district of Maharashtra came from rural areas and 22 per
cent from urban areas. The rural migrants out of total migrants from state of Uttar Pradesh
were highest (81.5%) followed by Bihar (79.7%), Rajasthan (66%), Karnataka (63%), Gujarat
320 D. P. Singh

TABLE 4: PERCENTAGE OF MIGRANTS FROM RURAL AND URBAN AREAS TO GREATER

MUMBAI BASED ON PLACE OF LAST RESIDENCE (1961 data based on place of birth)

1961* 1971 1981 1991 2001

Total Lifetime Migrants 64.24 56.86 51.46 37.46 43.70

Rural 58.13 64.17 66.03 67.65 68.47
Urban 33.16 31.51 31.28 30.04 26.15
Within state Migrants 41.64 41.94 42.47 41.32 37.59
Rural 74.82 78.74 76.33 77.49 74.33
Urban 24.92 20.95 23.64 22.42 20.79
Outside state Migrants 53.07 54.50 54.87 56.50 61.01
Rural 50.83 57.14 61.27 63.06 66.42
Urban 42.93 41.69 38.68 36.77 30.05
International Migrants 5.25 3.56 2.65 2.01 1.40
Intercensal Migrants (0-9 years) 51.90 38.68 37.16 31.32 31.11
Rural 60.72 66.14 69.81 70.84 71.56
Urban 33.27 31.08 28.95 27.65 25.20
Within state Migrants 41.17 41.48 42.29 39.23 30.96
Rural 74.86 78.49 78.16 78.94 76.39
Urban 24.91 21.23 21.76 21.01 21.19
Outside state Migrants 55.49 56.46 56.50 59.36 67.99
Rural 53.88 59.49 65.06 67.17 70.45
Urban 41.47 39.45 33.45 32.69 27.41
International Migrants 3.31 2.06 1.21 1.26 1.04

(59.5%), Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh between 55 to 58 per cent. State of
Punjab and West Bengal shows higher percentage of migrants from urban areas in comparison
to rural areas.
The trends of migration shows a shift from urban origin to rural origin migrants over
last five decades. Almost all the state migrant shows decline of percentage migrants from
urban areas while increase in percentage of migrants from rural areas. The North Indian
states shows higher percentage increase among migrants from rural areas during 5 decades
in comparison to southern states of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
Sex Composition
In 2001, the sex ratio of Mumbai defined as number of females to per thousand males
was found as 811. The sex ratio varies a lot among different groups of population — 903
among non-migrants to 854 intra-state migrants and 615 among interstate migrants. The
sex ratio among rural migrants was much less than migrants from urban areas. Similarly the
migrants originating from rural areas of other states indicate lower sex ratio than within
state migrants.
Over the five decades, a lot of improvement in sex ratio is observed among all types of
migrants. The most noticeable improvement in sex ratio is observed among urban intrastate
migrant which was about 1011 female per thousand males.
Migration in Mumbai: Trends in Fifty Years 321

TABLE 5: MIGRANTS FROM RURAL AND URBAN AREAS TO GREATER MUMBAI BASED ON
PLACE OF BIRTH DATA (2001 data based on place of last residence)

States Rural Census year

Urban
POB/PLR 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001*

Total population 4152 5971 8243 9926 11978

Total Migrant 2667 3372 4230 3697 5162
Maharashtra Rural 831 1123 1382 1190 1463
Urban 277 274 403 330 409
Uttar Pradesh Rural 223 338 523 563 997
Urban 95 111 149 148 226
Bihar Rural 3 8 24 38 126
Urban 3 5 10 13 32
Orissa Rural 1 3 8 10 30
Urban 1 1 2 3 8
West Bengal Rural 2 3 7 10 41
Urban 11 17 27 31 62
Gujarat* Rural 225 299 335 267 287
Urban 224 198 234 172 195
Madhya Pradesh Rural 7 10 15 15 30
Urban 16 20 25 21 27
Karnataka Rural 77 118 154 131 186
Urban 95 127 150 110 106
Andhra Pradesh Rural 56 63 71 48 73
Urban 34 38 43 37 49
Kerala* Rural 37 67 89 62 64
Urban 37 51 51 46 45
Tamil Nadu*(Pondicherry) Rural 43 54 73 65 90
Urban 42 55 69 63 69
Goa & Daman Rural 83 35 35 17 15
Urban 41 30 22 17
Rajasthan Rural 28 54 79 81 48
Urban 24 32 35 39 24
Punjab Rural 14 13 18 12 12
Urban 19 18 19 16 17
Haryana Rural – 7 9 8 9
Urban – 3 4 4 6
Delhi Rural 1 1 1 2 4
Urban 7 12 18 16 27
North Eastern states* Rural 1 2 4 3
(Assam and others) Urban 1 1 1 3 4
Other northern states* Rural 1 4 4 5 6
(JK, HP, Chandigarh) Urban 2 4 4 4 6

* Unclassified status of rural and urban are excluded. Total migrants data includes immigrants.
322 D. P. Singh

TABLE 6: SEX RATIO (Female per thousand Males) OF MIGRANTS

AND NON-MIGRANTS, MUMBAI: 1961-2001

Total Census year

Rural
Urban 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Total Population 663 717 772 818 811

Non-Migrants Total 909 905 894 857 903
Intra-state Lifetime Migrants Total 585 631 714 825 854
Rural 536 580 647 761 809
Urban 756 881 991 1099 1011
Inter-state Lifetime Migrants Total 509 553 626 706 615
Rural 399 467 532 619 535
Urban 618 700 812 887 803
Lifetime Immigrants 772 828 895 881 801
Intra-state Intercensal Migrants Total 644 717 804 990 971
Rural 598 668 740 922 920
Urban 804 924 1075 1298 1164
Inter-state Intercensal Migrants Total 501 597 658 766 552
Rural 418 516 568 685 480
Urban 625 737 857 961 763
Intercensal Immigrants 790 737 778 711 473

Rural Urban classification in 2001 census are based on place of Last Residence. In 1961-1991 census Lifetime
migrants are based on place of birth data. The intercensal migrants data are based on place of last residence
except in 1961.

The sex ratio of intercensal migrants are shown in Table 6. The similar pattern is
observed with much better ratio compared to lifetime migrants within state and interstate.
Inter-district Migration
As noted earlier that nearly 37 per cent of migrants to Greater Mumbai originate from
within the states. Table shows the place of birth of migrants coming from other districts.
The maximum number of migrants originate from district of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg
(bifurcated from Ratnagiri in 1981). Nearly 60 per cent of interdistrict in-migrant to Greater
Mumbai are from four districts—Ratnagiri, Satara, Poona and Raigarh (earlier known as
Kolaba district). During 1961 to 2001, the percentage of in-migrant from Ratnagiri district
has declined from 44.5 per cent to 31.5 while other districts mainly in the Marathwada
region namely—Latur, Nanded, Sholapur, Parbhani, Jalna, Osmanabad and Bid indicate
higher number of migrants.
The out-migration (person born in Greater Mumbai and enumerated in other districts
within state) from Greater Mumbai indicate that nearly half of migrants were found in
Ratnagiri and Thane district in 1971 and 1981. However, the 2001 census indicates that
nearly two third of out-migration from Mumbai reported in adjoining district of Thane.
This unprecedented increase in volume of migrants to Thane district is mainly accounted
Migration in Mumbai: Trends in Fifty Years 323

TABLE 7: INTERDISTRICT IN AND OUT MIGRATION IN GREATER MUMBAI: 1961-2001

Districts In-Migrants Out-migrants

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 1971 1981 1991 2001

11. Ratnagiri 494404 564890 628887 519917 612688 58059 68920 65868 59900
12. Satara 140520 146802 190522 165380 217529 15645 27855 31250 24028
13. Poona 117711 145934 194571 163220 196331 38281 59555 45860 119933
14. Kolaba 109204 129924 150000 126090 159644 21444 27805 37865 47247
15. Sangli NA 51241 73508 64710 83262 6080 10369 10680 10906
16. Thane 45349 55695 67053 48480 61352 67019 132540 107660 732889
17. Nasik 40509 49319 60143 49040 57601 10685 16039 18913 37205
18. Ahmednagar 38749 50140 71064 55150 67955 7685 9860 11760 15740
19. Kolhapur 36792 56336 70038 59700 81190 8650 11516 13550 14745
10. Sholapur 25179 39213 63579 58010 75905 3785 5526 9010 6337
11. Jalgaon 14423 27793 34400 28970 36845 2305 3555 5381 3857
12. Aurangabad Div. NA 33523 93949 95270 132712 3015 6601 10939 15707
13. Amravati Div. NA 22041 34755 35700 51636 2955 4534 7350 9562
14. Nagpur Div. NA 12021 16643 15350 22551 3890 5124 5300 7938
15. Other Dist. 47713 17116 36890 38060 82290 1095 2100 2680 2522
District Total 1110553 1401988 1786002 1523047 1939491 250593 391899 384066 1108516

due to movement of people for residential purpose as new areas in Thane district were
developed. Sizeable number of out-migrants are found in Poona district from Greater
Mumbai.
Sex Ratio among Inter-district Migration
Table 8 present the sex ratio among inter-district in and out-migrant within Maharashtra
state. The male domination among in-migrant is clearly observed in 1961 which show
substantial improvement in 2001. The out-migration from Mumbai shows better female to
male ratio. It may be inferred that most of female moving out of Mumbai on account of
marriage and family related factors while males moving to Mumbai on account of
employment and educational opportunities show less favourable sex ratio. Over the last 5
decades both in and out-migrants shows improvement in sex ratio.
Where they Settled in Mumbai
In 1961 census, first time a detail distribution of migrant population by place of origin
was published for wards of city and eastern and western suburbs of Mumbai. Table 9 presents
the statewise distribution of migrants in each ward. The migrants from other districts of
Maharashtra state were mainly settled in Ward F and G accounting for 37 per cent of state
migrants while 27 per cent were distributed in eastern and western suburbs wards of Mumbai.
In comparison to intrastate migrants, migrants from other states mainly U.P. Bihar, and MP
about 22 to 23 per cent were found in western suburbs and 12 to 13 per cent in eastern
324 D. P. Singh

TABLE 8: SEX RATIO AMONG INTER-DISTRICT IN AND OUT-MIGRANTS

OF GREATER MUMBAI: 1961-2001

District In-Migrants Out-migrants

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 1971 1981 1991 2001

11. Ratnagiri 521 564 657 763 810 1191 1269 1215 1210
12. Satara 424 460 494 619 682 1021 1134 1083 1148
13. Poona 730 775 817 958 997 1078 1193 1391 1292
14. Kolaba 584 615 700 839 848 1334 1407 1443 1264
15. Sangli 565 631 765 801 955 1099 1239 1245
16. Thane 950 1001 1108 1295 1315 1063 1119 1095 1020
17. Nasik 914 971 1060 1206 1178 927 1110 1204 1202
18. Ahmednagar 847 857 860 974 974 965 1167 1415 1324
19. Kolhapur 422 489 513 626 661 1138 1188 1189 1313
10. Sholapur 839 910 902 951 975 1154 1283 1365 1524
11. Jalgaon 890 796 852 908 915 1282 1232 1457 1501
12. Aurangabad division 855 881 942 914 958 1247 1421 1501
13. Amravati division 729 816 873 878 1273 1505 1483 1357
14. Nagpur division 862 915 981 945 1021 1347 1325 1585
15. Other Dist. 737 534 879 882 861 1100 1349 1414 1370

Total 585 631 714 825 855 1107 1191 1232 1100

N.B.: Out-migration Data for 1961 were not published.

suburbs. A high percentage of migrants from Gujarat (16.5%) and Rajasthan (26.8%) reported
in ward C area mainly commercial and business activity ward. The migrant from South
Indian states were reported in higher in Ward F, G, western and eastern suburbs. About 21
per cent of migrants from Kerala and Tamil Nadu reported to live in eastern suburbs. The
latter censuses did not record such details at ward level which would have provided the rich
understanding of migrant settlement in the city.
Duration of Residence
Table 10 presents the trend in duration of migrants from the state and other states
originating from rural and urban areas. About 2 to 3 per cent of migrants reported to have
moved in the year earlier to the census enumeration followed by 15 to 20 per cent moving
between 1 to 4 years and 10 to 17 per cent between 5 to 9 years. The migrants from other
districts rural areas show decline in intercensal migrants from rural areas while increase
among urban origin migrants. The interstate migrants show increase among both rural and
urban origin migrants over the decades. The duration pattern of movement to the city was
observed similar among male and female migrants. However, female migrants reported
higher percentage of movement during the intercensal period compare to male migrants.
Conclusion
The present paper attempts to understand migration pattern in Greater Mumbai over a
period of fifty years, 1961-2001. Based on census data, it has been found that the share of
 TABLE 9: WARDWISE POPULATION AND PERCENTAGE OF INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE MIGRANTS
IN MUMBAI 1961 CENSUS (place of birth data)

Total Migrants Ward A Ward B Ward C Ward D Ward E Ward F Ward G Western Eastern
(’000) Suburb Suburb

Total Population (’000) 4069 190 174 326 346 488 544 648 856 498
Non migrants 1485 3.55 5.29 8.71 9.49 12.55 12.58 15.36 21.95 10.51
Maharashtra 1111 3.76 3.38 6.25 8.23 13.55 17.10 20.24 15.07 12.42
Gujarat 451 3.87 6.05 16.48 11.14 6.24 7.68 6.65 29.51 12.38
Uttar Pradesh 320 4.58 3.55 5.23 5.22 19.18 10.42 17.63 21.19 12.99
Bihar 64 12.70 5.33 8.12 8.52 10.16 7.36 13.36 23.82 10.50
Madhya Pradesh 23 8.32 8.06 12.96 7.02 11.56 9.27 8.63 22.80 11.35
Migration in Mumbai: Trends in Fifty Years

Punjab 33 14.40 1.91 5.81 5.00 5.65 14.37 9.96 25.92 16.96
J.K.+H.P. 3 21.03 4.21 4.08 7.37 9.93 18.50 6.17 17.58 11.05
Delhi 9 10.89 4.54 5.69 7.87 9.65 12.52 10.66 26.75 11.43
Rajasthan 51 4.42 3.73 26.76 7.62 8.82 6.33 8.31 26.73 7.27
Andhra Pradesh 90 5.19 1.42 2.27 4.01 15.48 9.50 27.75 20.92 13.45
Karnataka 172 10.48 2.29 3.28 9.72 11.45 12.08 15.89 23.87 10.94
Kerala+Lacc 74 9.70 3.97 1.87 2.99 6.47 19.07 9.81 24.79 21.32
TN+Pondicherry 85 6.15 1.88 1.74 3.41 4.43 18.36 23.40 20.56 20.06
Orissa 2 12.08 1.75 0.90 3.07 1.65 36.72 10.34 10.81 22.70
W.B.+AN 13 14.21 3.64 9.49 10.31 7.58 12.97 7.55 23.31 10.93
Assam incl. (NEFA) 1 19.38 2.92 3.21 8.28 7.69 21.42 10.52 17.33 9.25
Goa 83 6.74 1.6 15.68 9.72 13.26 6.48 14.77 26.78 4.96
International migrants 131 9.81 2.44 3.39 6.02 5.04 18.75 12.05 22.52 19.97
From Pakistan 111 9.24 2.05 3.26 5.10 3.63 19.64 12.34 23.40 21.35
325
326 D. P. Singh

TABLE 10: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WITHIN STATE AND OUTSIDE STATE

MIGRANTS OF GREATER BOMBAY ACCORDING TO DURATION OF RESIDENCE
FROM RURAL AND URBAN AREAS OF PLACE OF LAST RESIDENCE BY SEX,
1981-2001 CENSUS

1981 Census 1991 Census 2001 Census

Within the State Outside State Within the State Outside State Within the State Outside State
R-U U-U R-U U-U R-U U-U R-U U-U R-U U-U R-U U-U

Male
0-1 years 2.16 2.38 3.18 2.59 1.41 1.63 1.70 1.73 1.45 1.66 2.18 2.02
1-4 years 16.74 15.65 19.98 16.46 12.68 10.99 15.51 13.64 10.90 11.89 18.15 16.58
5-9 years 17.01 14.38 16.54 14.53 13.70 12.65 16.45 12.73 12.45 10.73 17.79 13.72
10+ years 59.74 61.35 56.32 60.96 65.29 65.05 60.20 63.71 72.59 69.38 59.56 64.29
Period not
specified 4.35 6.24 3.98 5.46 6.93 9.69 6.14 8.19 2.60 6.34 2.33 3.38
Total (’000) 834 216 931 499 675 165 819 410 809 203 1382 532
Female
0-1 years 3.48 2.65 3.93 2.95 2.20 1.85 2.25 1.91 1.73 1.81 2.17 2.05
1-4 years 19.80 17.33 21.34 16.90 15.39 13.83 17.55 14.64 12.88 13.58 16.03 15.59
5-9 years 17.67 15.86 17.11 15.85 15.98 14.59 17.50 13.99 13.61 12.55 16.05 1309
10+ years 53.70 57.56 52.36 58.02 58.70 60.36 55.22 60.62 68.78 66.01 62.48 65.36
Period not
specified 5.35 6.60 5.26 6.28 7.74 9.36 7.48 8.84 3.01 6.04 3.27 3.91
Total (’000) 541 210 495 402 515 179 506 363 654 206 739 427

Source: Census of India, 1981, Migration Tables, Series12, Maharashtra, Part–V(A & B),Table D3.
Census of India, 1991, Migration Tables, Series 14, Maharashtra, Volume 1, Table D2 (Appendix).
Census of India, 2001, Migration Tables, Series 14, Maharashtra, Table D2 (computed from soft copy).

migration in intercensal population growth has declined from about 50 per cent during
1961 to about 40 per cent in 2001. However during last three decades it has staggered
around 40 per cent. The analysis reveals that flow of migration has increased significantly
from the Northern Indian states particularly Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya
Pradesh. The state of Gujarat which contributed maximum number of migrants to Mumbai
in earlier decades showed a decline in their percentage share of migrant. Considerably
enough, the migration flow from Southern Indian states such as Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka and Kerala showed little change as far as their share of migration is concerned.
Over fifty years the migration from rural areas has increased considerably from other
states compare to migrants from Maharashtra. Interestingly, the sex ratio of migrants showed
fast improvement over the period of under study. It implies that more female are coming to
Mumbai either as fresh migrants or to join their male partner.
The pattern of interdistrict migration flows indicate increase in the influx of migrant
from backward districts/region of the state. The outmigration from Mumbai to other district
within Maharashtra was mainly to neighbouring district of Thane. The last census of 2001
showed large number of migrants from Mumbai to Thane district due to development of
 Migration in Mumbai: Trends in Fifty Years 327

new townships known as New Mumbai. The large share of migrants from rural areas to the
city has resulted heavy burden on the existing resources. It is evident from the overcrowding
and unabated increase in slum population which has affected the basic amenities to the
residents of the city.
References
Acharya, Sarthi and Jose, A. V., 1991, Employment and Mobility: A study of workers of low Income Households
in Bombay City. Working Papers of Asian Regional Team for Employment Promotion, New Delhi:
International Labour Organisation.
Gore, M. S., 1970, Inmigrants and Neighbourhoods—Two Aspects of Life in a Metropolitan City. Bombay: Tata
Institute of Social Sciences.
Eliaga, J. C., 1966, A Study of Migration in Greater Santiago (Chile). Demography, 3(2): 352-377.
Nangia, P. and Gupta, K., (n.d.), Socio-Demographic Profile of Low Income Migrants in Thane, Research
Report Series no. 9, Bombay: International Institute for Population Sciences.
Lakdawala, D. T. et al., 1963, Work, Wages and Well Being in an Indian Metropolis: Economic Survey of
Bombay City. University of Bombay.
Lee, E. S., 1966, A Theory of Migration. Demography, 31: 47-57.
Mazumdar, Dipak, The Rural-Urban Wage Gap Migration and the working of Urban Labour Market: An
Interpretation based on a study of the workers of Bombay city. Indian Economic Review, 18(2): 169-198.
Muttagi, P. K. and Yesudian, C. A. K., 1984, Nature of Poverty in Greater Bombay: A Study of the Social and
Psychological Aspects of Poverty. Bombay: Tata Institute of Social Sciences (Mimeograph).
Narain, V. and Gotpagar, K. B., 1983, Bombay and its Inmigration. In: K. Sreenivasan and S. Mukerji (eds.),
Dynamics of Population and Family Welfare. Bombay: Himalaya Publishing House.
Narain, V., 1987, Forms of Migration and Measurement in Social Demography. International Migration, 25(2):
179-193.
Premi, M. K., 2001, Who Migrates to Delhi. Demography India, 30(1): 45-59.
Ramachandran, P., 1974, Some Aspects of Labour Mobility in Bombay City. Bombay: Tata Institute of Social
Sciences.
Sebastian, A., 1991, Bombay and its Migrants. Research Report Series no. 3, Bombay: International Institute
for Population Sciences.
Sengupta, C., 1982, Ratnagiri Migrants in Bombay: Potentialities of Return and Check Migration. Bombay:
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, (Mimeograph).
United Nations, 1970, Methods of Measuring Internal Migration: Manual VI. New York: United Nations.
Visaria, Pravin, 1973, Analysis of Data on Migration to Greater Bombay. Bombay University ( Mimeopgraph).
Yap, Lorene, 1977, The Attraction of cities. Journal of Development Economics, 4: 239-64.
Zachariah, K. C., 1966, Bombay Migration Study: A pilot analysis to an Asian Metropolis. Demography, 3.
Zachariah, K. C., 1968, Migrants in Greater Bombay. Asia Publishing House.
Zachariah, K. C., 1977, Measurement of Internal Migration from Census Data. In: A.A. Brown and E. Neuberger
(eds.), Internal Migration: A Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic Press, pp. 121-134.

View publication stats